Re: Comparison: SQL vs Oracle

David,

(Warning - employee bias ...)

Oracle database has been around and evolving for over 20 years. SQL Server was originally a rebrand of Sybase, and Sybase was started by ex-Oracle employees who had a better idea. In fact, in 1988, Sybase was better than Oracle in some ways, but (as is frequently the case in the software industry), the two leapfrogged each other several times.

About 5 years ago, Sybase stumbled at the vision level and (while still a good product) will probably not catch up. Add to that, Microsoft effectively divided their user base with the "SQL Server" brand of Sybase.

My intense dislike of SQL Server stems from the 'Microsoft-ization" of SQL Server - like all MS products, they have done an extremely good of making the simple very 'simplistic', so you can get a database running and doing stuff very, very quickly. Based on discussions (and limited experience), like all MS product, when it gets down to serious and comlpex business, the progammers have to get down to some serious and complex workarounds to make up for the simplistic thought processes. Advanced admin, management and maintenance tends to be a lot more complicated and expensive than I feel is necessary; pople buy it primarily because 'the price is right' and 'we can get stuff happening quickly'.

IMHO, the only two 'business' databases worth considering are Oracle and IBM DB2. Both require a lot longer to get started, to install, to learn, to become competent, etc. But once you've learned them, the thought processes scale a lot better to more difficullt business situations. Deciding between them is almost a religous decision; they are both solid, modern, extensible and powerful. I personally prefer Oracle, in part due to a 15 year history with the product as DBA and developer, and I happen to think Oracle's direction, vision and cost (yes, price + maintenance + hardware, etc.) is more effective. (I'd only had 7 years experience with DB2). I also like the O/S independance and the neat, nifty internet capabilities (multimedia, portals, Java, extensible objects, etc.) a bit better than that from DB2. Most of all, I find DB2ers stuffier than Oracleites. All reasons why I joined Oracle instead of IBM several years ago.

SO, my opinion - Oracle, not SQL Server.

/Hans

fangc_at_excite.com wrote:

> Sorry, never meant to start a flame war between the systems. I just would
> like to know which system would be the leading business software in the
> near future, because I'm thinking of taking few courses and learning one
> of them.
>
> Thanks for all the help.
>
> David
>
> fangc wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > Could someone tell me which database system is better: SQL or Oracle?
> > And why is it better than the other?
> >
> > I don't know too much about database system, but certainly would like to
> > know what others think of the these two systems.
> >
> > Thanx, greatly appreciated.
> >
> > Dave
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Posted via CNET Help.com
> > http://www.help.com/
>
> --
> Posted via CNET Help.com
> http://www.help.com/
Received on Fri Jun 22 2001 - 14:02:07 CDT